"The 'perfect' trading system - page 72
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Bullshit, not claims
I'd like to see the claim (I mean "..., different in that: 1. ... 2. ... ..."), not the abstract of the invention. :(
no need to read, you'd better patent something too :)))
There's no point. A patent is not a patent proposal. You have to pay money for it and in advance. The point from the patent if you really invented something useful, then maybe there will be some royalties, but maybe not.
And technological advances in the USSR were a different story. Not only they did not take money for them, but also paid money after registration. Though not very much, but they were paid.
The only reason for which the author bought the above patent in an underground passage is just to mess with the minds of those who don't realise that all patents are publicly available and their contents can be accessed through the relevant registry.
I'd like to see a claim (I mean "... different in that: 1. ... 2. ... ..."), not an abstract to the invention. :(
And without formulas you can see that a complete overlap of all variants is patented. For example, if there are 16 channels and their output will be equal, then you will need exactly 16 checks. If the output of all the channels will be different (no overlapping), then we will have to perform (2^16)^16 = 2^256 checks. This crap doesn't save any computational resources.
It's just a common nonsense, only patented.
Yes, but increasing the number of open positions does not increase profitability. So why does the price increase so dramatically? ....))))
You're usually more practical, idea, rubbish, implementation, testing, shelf next.
:)))) You got it right, but it's probably not just my disease, half the forum suffers from it...
>> to the whole forum.... Don't call me "you". It makes me a little nervous.
Yes, but increasing the number of open positions does not increase profitability. So why is the price increasing so dramatically? ....))))
Why so drastically only 7 per step is not that much.
:)))) You got it right, but it's probably not just my disease, half the forum suffers from it...
to the whole forum.... >> don't call me "you". It makes me a little nervous.
You mean in your thread, you're not the only one who invented it.
Not many options in general, either that or save up theory like Prival and then go on holiday for a month and do it all at once.
V2M3P3 (7777):
- Optimizable parameters: StopBase, absLimit2, absLimit3.
- Maximal number of simultaneously opened positions: 3
V2M3P2 (777):
- Optimizable parameters: StopBase, absLimit2.
- Maximal number of simultaneously opened positions - 2.
V2M3 (77)
- There is only one optimizable parameter: StopBase.
V2 (7)
- There is only one optimizable parameter: StopBase.
- The maximum number of simultaneously opened positions - 1
Frankly speaking, I do not see any difference between the last two, but it must be marketing. (I have removed lines that coincide in all of them to show the difference).
The latter two are identical in code.
But the one for 7 has no technical support and advice, i.e. it is just a full-featured adaptive EA for people who know how to use EAs.
Come on, Lenya, don't you see? As the number of poses opened at the same time increases, parameters are added - and as a consequence, the price increases slightly. Adding a parameter and a new pose is not enough.
I suspect that V2M3P4 will be the beast that takes all of Foreh's dough.
Come on, the hell with prices. So Victor likes number 7, fine. Everyone's got their own thing going on in his head. I, for one, love the number 17. So my proportion, when I put my series on sale, will be even cooler.)